<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Will You Be Allowed To Use Those Patented Parts You Purchased Any Way You Like?  Not Unless You&#8217;re Exhausted</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2008/01/31/will-you-be-allowed-to-use-those-patented-parts-you-purchased-any-way-you-like-not-unless-youre-exhausted/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2008/01/31/will-you-be-allowed-to-use-those-patented-parts-you-purchased-any-way-you-like-not-unless-youre-exhausted/</link>
	<description>Freshly Brewed Bio/Pharma Chat. Served Up Daily.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 08:32:51 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Patent Baristas &#187; Quanta Podcast: Patent Rights in the Supreme Court</title>
		<link>http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2008/01/31/will-you-be-allowed-to-use-those-patented-parts-you-purchased-any-way-you-like-not-unless-youre-exhausted/comment-page-1/#comment-69526</link>
		<dc:creator>Patent Baristas &#187; Quanta Podcast: Patent Rights in the Supreme Court</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:49:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2008/01/31/will-you-be-allowed-to-use-those-patented-parts-you-purchased-any-way-you-like-not-unless-youre-exhausted/#comment-69526</guid>
		<description>[...] Federalist Society has a new patent law podcast posted on the Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics case before the Supreme Court and its impact on patent licensing.   In Quanta, the Supreme Court [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Federalist Society has a new patent law podcast posted on the Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics case before the Supreme Court and its impact on patent licensing.   In Quanta, the Supreme Court [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Patent Baristas &#187; Scientists Say Seed Technology Agreements Stop Research</title>
		<link>http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2008/01/31/will-you-be-allowed-to-use-those-patented-parts-you-purchased-any-way-you-like-not-unless-youre-exhausted/comment-page-1/#comment-65757</link>
		<dc:creator>Patent Baristas &#187; Scientists Say Seed Technology Agreements Stop Research</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:16:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2008/01/31/will-you-be-allowed-to-use-those-patented-parts-you-purchased-any-way-you-like-not-unless-youre-exhausted/#comment-65757</guid>
		<description>[...] results before they can be published.  Going far beyond the restrictions of patents, where the rights would be exhausted once the seeds we sold, the technology agreements put much tighter restrictions on the patented [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] results before they can be published.  Going far beyond the restrictions of patents, where the rights would be exhausted once the seeds we sold, the technology agreements put much tighter restrictions on the patented [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: EG</title>
		<link>http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2008/01/31/will-you-be-allowed-to-use-those-patented-parts-you-purchased-any-way-you-like-not-unless-youre-exhausted/comment-page-1/#comment-40029</link>
		<dc:creator>EG</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2008 14:11:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2008/01/31/will-you-be-allowed-to-use-those-patented-parts-you-purchased-any-way-you-like-not-unless-youre-exhausted/#comment-40029</guid>
		<description>Steve,

As the Respondent (LQ Electronics) and most of the Amici supporting the Respondent have noted (some more strongly than others such as AIPLA), the impact of 35 USC 271(d) was not part of this oral argument.  35 USC 271(d) may have overturned the patent exhaustion doctrine, either explicitly or implicitly (by its language).  I&#039;m not optimistic that SCOTUS will deal with the impact of 35 USC 271(d) on patent exhaustion, even though it should as this section was enacted to curb a whole line of SCOTUS doctrine (including misuse) that curtailed the patentee&#039;s ability to enforce its rights.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Steve,</p>
<p>As the Respondent (LQ Electronics) and most of the Amici supporting the Respondent have noted (some more strongly than others such as AIPLA), the impact of 35 USC 271(d) was not part of this oral argument.  35 USC 271(d) may have overturned the patent exhaustion doctrine, either explicitly or implicitly (by its language).  I&#8217;m not optimistic that SCOTUS will deal with the impact of 35 USC 271(d) on patent exhaustion, even though it should as this section was enacted to curb a whole line of SCOTUS doctrine (including misuse) that curtailed the patentee&#8217;s ability to enforce its rights.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
